Delay In Issuing Final Notification Not A Ground To Quash Acquisition Proceeding Or Declare That Acquisition Is Abandoned: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court held that the delay in issuing the final notification cannot be a ground to quash the acquisition proceeding or to declare that the acquisition has been abandoned.

The Dharwad Bench held thus in intra-court appeals preferred by the land owners and Belagavi Urban Development Authority (BUDA), challenging the Single Judge’s orders.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed, “The present acquisition is under the provisions of KUDA Act. The provisions of the KUDA Act are in pari materia with the provisions of the BDA Act, 1976 and no limitation is provided in the scheme of KUDA Act for issuance of Final Notification and passing of the award. Hence, the aspect of delay in issuing the final notification cannot be a ground to quash the acquisition proceeding or to declare that the acquisition has been abandoned.”

Senior Advocate Gurudas Khannur and Advocate M.A. Hulyal appeared for the BUDA while Advocates V.P. Kulkarni and D. Ravikumar Gokakar appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the BUDA issued a preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (KUDA Act), intending to acquire a land including that of the petitioners. The land owners filed objections to the same, seeking to delete/excuse/drop the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they are having silk farm, the acquired lands are the only lands owned by them, surrounding lands are fully developed and having non-agricultural potentiality and the lands are irrigated lands etc.

The BUDA rejected such objections and proceeded to issue final notification. Being aggrieved, the land owners filed the writ petitions, challenging the preliminary notification and final notification. BUDA filed statement of objections and opposed the said petitions. The Single Judge quashed the final notification and remitted back the matter to the respondents for consideration afresh. Being aggrieved, one of the land owners and BUDA were in appeal.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “We have also perused the additional statement of objections filed by the BUDA, wherein BUDA has detailed the reasons for delay in issuing Final Notification. We are satisfied with the reasons stated in the additional statement of objections with regard to delay. We are of the view that in the absence of any statutory mandate for issuance of Final Notification within the particular time, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the land owners has no merit consideration.”

The Court said that the contention of the land owners that the acquisition is required to be declared as abandoned in view of 7 years’ delay in issuing Final Notification and the surrounding lands are developed, has no merit consideration.

“If any development or alienation as claimed by the land owners has taken place in the acquired land after Preliminary Notification, it would be at the risk of the land owners in view of specific provisions under the Karnataka Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1991 and if the surrounding lands are illegally developed as claimed by the land owners, the same cannot be a ground to seek for dropping of the acquisition proceedings or seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings are abandoned”, it added.

The Court emphasised that in such a circumstance, the Court should be more careful in interfering with the acquisition proceedings, unless acquisition is vitiated by colourable exercise of power or malafide.

“A mandate of law is that the decision of the Authority can be authenticated by the Signature of the Commissioner. … Hence, non-signing of the Resolution by the other members, as contended by the learned counsel for the land owners, has no merit consideration and accordingly, rejected”, it further observed.

The Court also noted that, in this case, the Commissioner has considered the objections of the land owners and, it is the Authority, who has to consider the objections of the land owners.

“Considering the specific stand of the BUDA and also keeping in mind the fact that the subject lands are in the centre of the layout and not in the periphery of layout, we are of the considered view that this is not a case to quash the entire acquisition proceedings. However, our observation of requirement of land for scheme shall not be construed by BUDA as a finding and rejected the objections of land owner”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals.

Cause Title- Belagavi Urban Development Authority v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment